Nobody can actually prove atomic structure or quantum theories either, yet we believe those... No one can mathematically pinpoint the entity known as "I" (Hawking), its impossible... yet we each believe in ourselves... with no proof.

*shakes head* please dont "help" here anymore

Why bother? Can we really know that god exist? or that he don't? maybe we would be better of if we used our mind of something that we could use.. like.. I need too learn some english grammar.

there is a saying in my language.. gonna try too translate: U can't christen an educated man.

also. If I spend my life as an ateist.. and god happen too exist.. so what? I don't think I am going to hell because I don't belive in god..If so then he ain't my god.

For all your huffing and puffing you still have showed no causal relationship. You scream reason and logic but your arguments are full of logical fallacies.

I guess you are retarded. Those hijackers that crashed planes into buildings did so based on faith, not reason. They had faith that they would go to some sort of heaven for doing what they did. It's their religion that feeds them this nonsense about heavens and gods and that faith is a good thing.

*shakes head* please dont "help" here anymore

You fail at reasonable discussion. To simply say "logical fallacy, der haha ha ha" doesn't really cut it. You have to demonstrate the flaw in the post, dumbass. Right now, all you've done is point a finger and say "logical fallacy" and you've ignored the causal relations that you've asked for as well. I guess your faith must be your logic, since you are so good at ignoring evidence.

Why bother? Can we really know that god exist? or that he don't?

Yes. I know that the god described in the bible does not exist.

Also, quantum mechanics makes extremely accurate predictions experimentally, as does all reliable scientific models. We accept them as true because they have this power. Religion has...nothing. It can't be used to build knowledge, it doesn't make accurate predictions, it isn't based on a single bit of evidence.

thank you for saying this...this has, thus far, been ignored by the apologists. Making accurate predictions is the standard...not sounding good...or making us feel wholesome.
These concepts didn't come about for fun...they are an attempt to predict the behavior of certain systems. As we were able to measure more accurately, we needed equations to predict more and more delicate results.


Before anyone goes...yeah..but it's all god...

I like the way Louis Black put it. "I keep a fossil with me, and anytime someone attacks evolution, I wave it in front of their face, and say "FOSSIL"...then I throw it just over their head.

It's telling that religeon has, to a great degree, become a case of "well yeah, you're right, but god did it all"

religions are, to me, just old cults. Just about everything, in terms of world-view, has evolved from less enlightened stances...that are conveniently forgotten as time evolves.

God doesn't rule man, "god" is an emotional projection of man's hopes/fears onto a world that runs just fine with or without man, let alone "his" god(s).

remember Purgatory? I do, and I'm demanding an investigation into the abolishment of it.
people often try to vote on "reality" with a straight face, and always end up looking foolish...gives us artists something to laugh at/rail against.


****. Damn that was good dude. Damn good... thanks.

So religion doesn't cause religious extremism?

Not that I've seen... it always seems to be fear or hatred or arrogance or ignorance that push practicioners away from their accepted standard of doctrine and into the realm of violent persecution.

Like when "Love thy neighbor" somehow turned into "kill them in the name of --- blank----."

We've been through this before but it looks like it something that's going to come up again and again like a bad _ing _un thread.

I agree totally, faith in the infallibility of man is silly. Which is why the scientific method exists. We recognize that people have biases that affect their judgment, we recognize that
we are more critical of the ideas we are opposed to than those we hold. This is why a good experiment must be designed as such that bias is factored out. Take medicine for example, if I was testing homeopathy by giving it to a bunch of people then it would be best if I didn't know if I was giving someone a placebo or the homeopathic preparation. That way my huge bias against the load of fucking bollocks has been accounted for. Science has safeguards against human judgmental errors. Religion doesn't. It has "believe it, it's infallible." and that's it. It is a combination of reading old books of made up **** and making up new **** to deal with the knotty points.

Science doesn't claim infallibility. Religion does. What part of the bible says that it's possible that the whole thing could be wrong? What bit of it says "we might be wrong on this god stuff but we'll run with it until better evidence comes along." What bit of it even suggests that one of the other religions could be right? None of it. The bible has it's head firmly up it's own arse with regards to t3h tr00th, and so does religion.

In science you believe only so far as the evidence supports it, and that you must be prepared to discard that if better evidence comes along. We started using science because we needed a better way than just making things up. There is no comparison to religion which is just "believe it no matter what."

Also, quantum mechanics makes extremely accurate predictions experimentally, as does all reliable scientific models. We accept them as true because they have this power. Religion has...nothing. It can't be used to build knowledge, it doesn't make accurate predictions, it isn't based on a single bit of evidence.

No discovery has ever been dependent on accepting a religious model of the universe. When you use religion to answer a question, you really aren't doing any better than saying "magic".

It really amuses me when people talk of scientists as a bunch of stuffy old gits with their heads up their arse that can't see that their own views are "just another faith". If you think you can rock the foundations of quantum mechanics, or mathematics, or medicine, or physics, or chemstry then go and collect superior evidence and show them.


You mean like the same scientists that claim Global Warming is a man-made danger... doesn't say a whole lot for the whole "extremists only exist on the religion side" argument.... I remain solo... I don't need either side.

You fail at reasonable discussion. To simply say "logical fallacy, der haha ha ha" doesn't really cut it. You have to demonstrate the flaw in the post, dumbass. Right now, all you've done is point a finger and say "logical fallacy" and you've ignored the causal relations that you've asked for as well. I guess your faith must be your logic, since you are so good at ignoring evidence.

So I went back and read my posts, and I am not sure...do you need me to point out the sentence or piece of argument that contains the logical fallacy I name in my reply? an if you like, but damn I didnt think I had to spoon feed people here.

For the record I believe dogmatic religions can and do cause more harm than good, I just cant stand people praising logic and then giving her the ole Cleveland Steamer.

So I went back and read my posts, and I am not sure...do you need me to point out the sentence or piece of argument that contains the logical fallacy I name in my reply? an if you like, but damn I didnt think I had to spoon feed people here.

You're a fucking idiot. Causal relationship has been shown, but you keep asking to see it. You keep saying "har har, logical fallacy" when there isn't one, asshole.

You're a fucking idiot. Causal relationship has been shown, but you keep asking to see it. You keep saying "har har, logical fallacy" when there isn't one, asshole.

Once again refer to post 1243...do you want me to make the airplane sounds as I spoon feed you?

On a side note, since you are so skilled in the art of logical fallacies see if you can come up with a single argument for the existence of god that isn't based on one.

Not too hard actually. It is contingent upon the definition of god, and since there is no universal agreed upon definition you do not fall into the humpty dumpty fallacy.

Not too hard actually. It is contingent upon the definition of god, and since there is no universal agreed upon definition you do not fall into the humpty dumpty fallacy.
Then by all means do -- provide the definition and show your work.

OOOOOOOH so now we are getting into definitions. Wow. What a way to attempt to derail the thread yet again. "The way I define god" leads to circular arguments. It also leads to "Real religion arguments", and the most pointless of them all, "All religions are really worshiping the same God, even though we cant get a consistant idea going as to what this GOD is." Stop taking this round and round the same path, Specify what it is exactly you believe and please please provide viable actual evidence that your god exists.

To sum up:
"No one can define my god and he isnt what you think so there" is not a valid argument